Department of Applied Social Studies
Bachelor of Social Sciences in Psychology
SS4708 - Research Project in Psychology
FINAL YEAR PROJECT
BSSPSY – 2007
Gender and cultural differences in the
empathy-altruism hypothesis
among university students in Hong Kong
Student Name:
Supervisor:
Date:
Woo Man Sze, Zisi
Dr. Betty C. Eng
28th April, 2007
1
Abstract
This study aims to examine the authenticity of empathy-altruism hypothesis in
university students of Hong Kong, and whether gender and cultural factors would
determine its effectiveness. One hundred and eighty-eight year one university students
in Hong Kong participated and were categorized by gender and language major as it
related to cultural values. Participants were asked to fill in a questionnaire to measure
their empathy level after watching a video clip that portrayed a message of
encouraging help by feeling for others. Independent t-test, chi-square and comparison
of frequency percentage were employed to determine the difference in empathic score
and the corresponding relation to the hypothetic situational altruistic behavior. Results
showed no significant differences between male and female’s empathy scores. Except
for categorizing the participants by willingness to be a volunteer worker, a marginal
significant difference was found, with female participants’ empathy score higher than
male participants. No statistical significant result was obtained in all kinds of
classification in cultural dimension. For the investigation of the relation of empathic
level and altruistic behavior, significant result was found only in female participants,
who were willing to participate in hypothetic altruistic behavior. Implications,
limitations and improvements of the present study were explained in discussion for
suggesting future investigation.
2
Table of Contents
Page
Abstract
ii
Introduction
6
Purpose of Study
6
Significance of Study
7
Literature Review
10
Altruism
10
Pro-social behavior in social exchange perspective
10
Gender and cultural difference in altruism
12
Empathy-altruism hypothesis
14
Early explanations of the role of empathy in altruism
15
Empathy
17
Gender difference in empathy
20
Concept of in-groups and out-groups
21
Effects of language learning on self identity
21
Cultural difference in empathy
22
Kohlberg’s theory of moral development
23
3
Relationship between moral orientation and altruistic motivation
in Chinese context
24
Research Hypotheses
26
Method
28
Participants
28
Facilities and Apparatus used in Study
31
Procedure
35
How the data was analyzed
37
Results
39
Gender differences in university students’ empathy score
39
Cultural differences in university students’ empathy score
40
Relationship between empathy scores and altruistic behavior
in Gender Dimension
43
Relationship between empathy scores and altruistic behavior
in Cultural Dimension
44
Discussion
48
Implications and limitations of study
48
Recommendations and further investigation
55
4
References
58
Appendices
69
Appendix I - Sample of Administration consent form
69
Appendix II - Sample of Participant consent form
71
Appendix III - Sample of Research Questionnaire
73
5
Gender and cultural differences in the empathy-altruism hypothesis
among university students in Hong Kong
Introduction
Many scholars have studied the reasons behind people engaging in pro-social
behaviors. One of the important questions in this field is whether pure altruism really
exists. Batson (1987, 1991) introduced the empathy-altruism hypothesis to prove the
existence of altruistic behavior, which is motivated by empathic feeling. Nevertheless,
some people in the society could be considered as more helpful than others. Batson
tried to explain this individual difference through his hypothesis that people help for
purely altruistic reasons if they feel empathy. Otherwise, people would help according
to their own self interest. Thus, factors that influence the level of empathic feeling
become a determinant in altruistic behavior. Based on Batson’s empathy-altruism
hypothesis, researchers have found that several factors would lead to the differences,
which included gender, personality and emotional states (Aronson et al., 2001).
Purpose of Study
The objectives of the present research were to examine the authenticity of this
hypothesis in university students of Hong Kong. In addition, according to a number of
studies has shown that there is a gender difference on empathy scale, to investigate
whether gender would be a factor that determines the effectiveness of this hypothesis.
6
Furthermore, in reference with research that people from collectivistic culture would
more likely to feel empathy for in-group members (Batson et al., 2001). It is believed
that altruistic behavior would be more likely to be evoked when the helpee is
considered as an in-group member, which can be foresee that there would be cultural
difference in empathy for people from the collectivistic and individualistic cultures.
Through understanding the role of culture in the concept of in-groups and out-groups,
another objective of the current research was to explore the cultural difference in
empathy-altruism hypothesis.
Significance of Study
Firstly, this study is significant to one because I would like to fulfill my personal
interest in understanding human nature in helping behavior. I always prefer an
optimistic view to a Freudian negative view on human nature because of the
numerous stories about people helping each other in the society. I believe that
altruistic motivators are rooted inside humans, which is something good that involve
no manipulation. However, it seems those helping situations involving self interest are
more common in daily lives, which possibly cover the bright side of people (Sabini,
1995). This is because reward, such as material and psychological benefit, is
observable and measurable in most pro-social occasions. Nevertheless, I believe that
helping behavior is not purely a kind of positive outcome in cost benefit analysis. As
7
people become less likely to care about the pure altruistic motive, I would like to
bring this goodwill to the society. It is because cost of helping does not always
involve little effort, especially for situations such as marrow donation where the donor
may bear a health risk. In such cases, they may get emotional comfort as the primary
benefit. Something must be important to motivate a person to help. Therefore, through
proving Batson’s empathy-altruism hypothesis in university students in Hong Kong, it
can enrich the evidence for the existence of altruism, thus changing the dominating
negative view in society by exalting the beautiful side of human nature.
Secondly, by verifying empathy is the key factor that would lead to higher
probability of the occurrence of altruistic behavior, the current study provides
indicators for charitable organizations to increase their chance for receiving help by
developing advertising strategy that enhance empathic feeling of potential helpers. I
believe that everybody will experience an occasion when they need help and wish to
obtain help. Since everybody is favorable to altruistic behavior, increasing its chance
of happening fills the world with harmony.
Thirdly, if empathy is the crucial key that leads to different kinds of general
altruistic behavior, the next step is to identity the determinants that can induce
empathic feeling. This is the rationale of the present study to focus on gender and
cultural differences in empathy and altruism. Different kinds of altruistic behavior
8
may require different kinds of strengths. For example, in helping in a fire situation,
people with physical strength, with males and females, would be considered as more
capable in performing such type of helper. It is easy to imagine that everybody can act
as a helping role differently and some people can help more effectively in some
situations. For instance, according to Hong Kong Red Cross (2005), male donors are
suggested to give blood four times a year. Because females lose blood through
menstruation, they are suggested to give blood three times a year at most. This
frequency of blood donation is determined by the life expectancy of red blood cells,
which is roughly 120 days. Therefore, fewer donations would be obtained if only
females are willing to help. As a result, if there is a gender difference in empathy, it
can provide explanation and suggestion to increase empathic feeling of the particular
gender. Similarly, people from different cultures may have different levels of
empathic feeling towards the helpee. Of importance is whether the cultural identity of
helpee is considered as an in-group member by the helper. If this is the case, people
can work on this concept to increase the likelihood of altruism in the world to serve
the common good. This provides a more conducive social environment that can
enhance acceptance and cooperation among people.
9
Literature Review
Altruism
Altruism is generally defined as any form of voluntary act intended to favor
another without expectation of reward (Smith & Mackie, 2000; Batson et al. 2002;
Aronson et al., 2004). It is a specific kind of motivation to benefit another without
consciously considering for one’s own self interest (Hall, 1999). In other words,
altruism refers to a kind of selfless help, which based on pure desire to help others
(Aronson, Wilson, Akert, & Fehr, 2004.) Nevertheless, altruism is not a synonym for
pro-social behavior. The latter refers to helping behavior of favoring another person
with the goal that may involve benefits to self (Smith & Mackie, 2000; Aronson et al.,
2004). For instance, people donating money to tsunami relief fund may not always be
selfless. In the case that the donation is for the sake of tax exemption, its motive
would not be regarded as altruistic. The major difference between altruism and
pro-social behavior is that altruism does not involve the element of self interest
(Myers, 1996).
Pro-social behavior in social exchange perspective
In the past decades, psychologists have been researching on the internal
processes underneath helping behavior and having an enduring debate on the
existence of true altruism (Cialdini, 1991). With the presence of self interest, helping
10
behaviors are mostly explained by the social exchange perspective. Here, the basic
idea stated that people only participate in helping behavior when rewards outweigh
costs, which seems giving a cynical view to helping behavior. Nevertheless, helping
behavior that involving cost and benefit seem occupied a wide range of situations as
the expense and reward in the cost-benefit analysis are not necessary to be explicit as
money reward. Aronson et al. (2004) have listed out some possible psychological
benefits of helping, including increasing feeling of self-worth, maintaining social
connection, gaining social approval and relieving one’s distress and guilty feeling.
While the costs of helping may involve time and financial constraints. From the above,
we can see that costs and benefits can also be implicit as verbal praise or be
interpreted as staying away from potential physical danger. In some cases, the reward
does not follow immediately after the pro-social act. That the motive of anticipation
of distant reward would also be considered as self-centered based (Buss, 2001). As
above, helping acts that explained by social exchange perspective seemed providing a
negative picture. However, the nature of the pro-social acts is basically positive.
Trivers (1971) introduced the ideology of reciprocal altruism, which stated that
helping act that were repaid later which resulting the altruist finally rewarded, both
helper and helpee would benefit.
11
Gender and cultural difference in altruism
For the reason of why some people are more helpful, base on the folklore that
females are more helpful, Eagly and Crowley (1986) hypothesized that there is gender
differences in altruistic behavior. Results showed neither sex was more altruistic than
the other. Nevertheless, there was a difference between the helping styles according to
gender. Men helped in more chivalrous way such as saving person from drowning and
from burning building. While women helped in more nurturing ways and involved in
long term commitment such as spending time in school for teaching children how to
read.
For the cultural dimension, both adults and children from collectivistic culture
which placing greater emphasis on connectedness and needs of in-group, are more
likely to help in-group members but less likely to help out-group members than
people from individualistic culture (Aronson et al, 2004). To explore the difference
between the two types of culture by definition, collectivistic culture stands for a
society in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong cohesive
in-groups, while individualistic culture stands for a society in which the ties between
individuals are loose that everyone is expected to look after himself or herself. Hui
and Villareal (1989) identified the relationship between psychological needs and
corresponding cultural group for people in Hong Kong and America, which the
12
former represented collectivism and the latter referred to individualism. Results
showed that Hong Kong participants were found positively related to the needs of
affiliation, succor, and nurturance while negatively related to the needs for autonomy.
In contrast, American subjects were found negatively associated with needs for
affiliation, nurturance and succor. Furthermore, Triandis, Bontempo and Villareal
(1988) concluded that collectivists would pay more concern on the integrity and tend
to have intense emotional attachment towards the in-group, while members of
individualism would pay less concern and have less emotional attachment to the
in-group members. Triandis (1995) indicated that this cultural difference was caused
by the process of forming social identity, which collectivists emphasize individual
submergence to group goals. Davis (1980) investigated the relationship between
collectivistic cultural attitude and empathy, which was viewed as a multidimensional
system consisting both affective and cognitive components. The affective element and
the family, as well as society were found most crucial to the construct value in
collectivism. Triandis (1990) also highlighted collectivists emphasized on the
perception of in-group norm, automatic obedience to in-group authorities and
willingness to fight and die for the in-group. These in-group ideas further led to
distrust and uncooperative with out-group members that increase in response to
external threat.
13
Empathy-altruism hypothesis
In order to investigate the determinants that make the individual differences in
altruistic behaviour, Batson (1987, 1991) introduced the empathy-altruism hypothesis,
which refers to
“the claim that feeling empathic emotion for someone in need evokes altruistic
motivation to relieve that need has been called the empathy-altruism hypothesis.
According to this hypothesis, the greater the empathic emotion, the greater the
altruistic motivation.” (Batson et al., 2002, p. 488) .
In other words, if people felt empathy, they will help regardless of whether it is in
their interest to do so, even when the costs outweigh the rewards. However, if people
do not feel empathy for someone who is in trouble, they will only help if it is in their
interest to do so (Smith & Mackie, 2000). The empathy-altruism hypothesis suggested
that people help for the sake of helping that pure altruism exists. Thus, the two factors
underlying helping behaviour, empathy versus self-interest, become a major concern
in research for investigating altruism. Toi and Batson (1982) tried to distinguish that
empathy, rather than cost, is contributing to altruism. Results showed that 80% of
people in high empathy condition helped regardless of costs, which consistent with
the empathy-altruism hypothesis. However, in the low empathy condition, cost
became an important factor. By considering the cost of not helping, 75% of
14
participants in high cost and 35% of low cost of not helping would help, which was
consistent with social exchange theory. In reference to this theory, pro-social behavior
is motivated by the learning principle to maximize rewards and minimize costs, which
always involves cost and benefit analysis that provide a cynical view of helping
behavior. (Aronson et al., 2004)
Early explanations of the role of empathy in altruism
Although empathy is a crucial factor in contributing to altruism, the nature of
empathy was doubted by some researchers that empathy could also be interpreted as
egoistic. Smith, Keating, and Stotland (1989) suggested that the empathy is guided by
empathic joy that was considered as egoistic, which referred to empathetically
aroused individuals help for the sake of feel joy at the needy individual’s relief. They
proposed the empathy joy hypothesis, which stated:
“The prospect of empathic joy, conveyed by feedback from the help recipient, is
essential to the special tendency of empathic witnesses to help…. The
empathically concerned witness …helps in order to be happy” (Smith et al., 1989,
p.641).
To test the above explanation, Batson et al. (1991) conducted another study in which
participants were told that they either would or would not know whether their helping
actions were successful or not. Results showed that empathic joy has its own limit on
15
empathy-altruistic behavior. Other researches also determined that empathy triggers
altruism that people whose empathy is aroused regardless of other people knowing
their helping behavior (Shaw, Batson & Todd, 1994; Fultz et al., 1986; Hall, 1999).
Nevertheless, Cialdini, Schaller, Houlihan, Arps, Fultz and Beaman (1987) believed
that empathy relate to helping act might not be induced by the empathic joy, but by
the negative stress. They concluded that empathy-based help is selfishly rather than
selflessly motivated by the explanation of the idea of negative state relief. That seeing
other people’s suffer induced a negative affection state, in which the sadness would
evoke the person’s feeling of empathy and turn it into a helping act to relieve their
negative emotion, which is again a self-centered motive. However, another
experiment revealed that reaction to other’s need with facial distress was negatively
related to intentions to help (Eisenberg and Miller, 1988). Similarly, result of Batson’s
experiment again showed that empathic participants helped more than distressed
participants, which means that empathy may lead to helping victims for their own
sake (Batson et al. 1989).
In addition, Batson et al. (2002) categorized the self benefits that can result from
helping another for whom one feels empathy into three general classes, including
reducing one’s empathic arousal, gaining social and self-rewards and avoiding
possible social and self-punishments for not helping. Experiments were employed to
16
test the above three egoistic alternatives, however, all results supported the
empathy-altruism hypothesis instead (Batson et al., 1988; Batson & Weeks, 1996).
Nevertheless, both scholars, Batson and Cialdini agree that if people help another
person solely for the sake of relieving own stress, the behavior will be a self-centered
helping behavior but not altruism (Buss, 2001). Batson’s hypothesis does not deny
that there are possible occasions of egocentric motives in altruistic behavior. And this
is supported by Hoffman’s view on egoistic motive that can also be regarded as
other-centered
“Aside from its egoistic element, empathic distress has certain dimensions that
clearly mark it as an altruistic motive. First, it is aroused by another’s misfortune,
not just one’s own; second, a major goal of the ensuring action is to help the
other, not just the self; and third, the potential for gratification for the actor is
contingent on the actor’s doing something to reduce the other’s distress.”
(Hoffman, 1981, p.134).
Empathy
Smith and Mackie (2000) pointed out that Batson’s definition of empathy, which
refers to the competence to sense and experience another’s experiences, emotions,
thoughts and attitudes, is critical in empathy-altruism hypothesis. The origin of the
word empathy is from a German term “Einfuhlung” that initially used in aesthetics,
17
which referred to the tendency of observers to project themselves into what they
observe, especially for sense of beauty in physical object, which was not related to
psychology. Later, Titchener (1909) translated this German term into English. Before,
Lipps (1903) was the first scholar to use the term “Einfuhlung” in psychological
context. Nevertheless, before the term empathy was established, the word “sympathy”
was used by psychologists that people often mixed up the concept of sympathy and
empathy (Buss, 2001). Wispe (1986) believed that these two concepts are not alike
and are initially created in separate traditions. Therefore, clear distinction between
sympathy and empathy should be defined:
“In empathy, the empathizer ‘reaches out’ for the other person. In sympathy, the
sympathizer is ‘moved by’ the other person. In empathy, we substitute ourselves
for others. In sympathy, we substitute others for ourselves” (Wispe, 1986, p.
318).
Similarly, Aronson et al. (2004) pointed out sympathy is more like a feeling of
sorry and pity thus the two concepts were separated, which less effort is required to
feel sympathy than empathy. Batson et al. (2002) later defined empathy as a possible
source of altruistic motivation that refers to
“an other-oriented emotional response elicited by and congruent with the
perceived welfare of someone else.” (Batson et al., 2002, p.486).
18
They also identified seven other empathy concepts, including knowing another
person’s internal state; assuming the physical posture of an observed other; coming to
feel as another person feels; projecting oneself into another’s situation; imagining
how another is feeling; imagining how one would think and feel in another’s place;
and being upset by another person’s suffering (Batson et al., 2002). Wegner (1980)
believes empathy is related to self concept that is arisen from confusion between self
and other. Batson, Sager, Garst, Kang, Rubchinsky and Dawson (1997) disagreed and
contended that
“One must recognize the uniqueness of the other and his or her experience,
distinct from oneself and one’s own experience, to appreciate the plight of and to
feel for another” (p.497) (Batson et al., 1997).
Thus, empathy is defined as the similar definition as above, which mainly focus on
understanding and comprehension of others (Aronson et al., 2004).
The existence of empathy can also be explained by many with a biological and
evolutional approach (Hoffman, 1981; Zahn-Waxler & Radke-Yarrow, 1990). In view
of the biological approach, empathy is a feeling that underlying reproductive
consideration, which can help one to maintain the number of offspring by increasing
the chance of survival. And the empathic feelings extend from kin relations to similar
and alike individuals or even a wide range of species (Batson, 1991; Kerbs, 1975;
19
Shelton & Rogers, 1981). While for the evolutional approach, the extension is usually
relate to cognitive generalization that is based on adopting others, which induce basic
native impulse to care for offspring when they are in need (Batson, 1987; Hoffman,
1981; MacLean, 1973). In reference to the above definitions, empathy is not
necessary for the helper to feel distress and sadness. Empathy is an inborn affective
nature for human to save people of same species for survival. Nevertheless, helping
behavior may not only due to empathy but also personal distress in real life situation
(Batson, Fultz, & Schoenrade, 1987). Whether the helper can share the same emotion
as the helpee may depend on the relationship between both parties and relevant shared
past experience (Buss, 2001).
Gender difference in empathy
Eisenberg and Lennon (1983) pointed out that it is undoubtedly true that females
are more empathic than males. Many researches support Eisenberg and Lennon’s
statement (Batson, Sympson & Hindman et al., 1996; Hall, 1999). The reason behind
the difference can be explained by the greater role in reproduction for females as girls
are taught to be more empathic through the socialization process (Buss, 2001). This
explanation also provides insight to why females would be considered as more helpful
in nurturing ways.
20
Concept of in-groups and out-groups
Abrams Hogg and Marques (2005) first assumed that social life is taken part
within a framework of relationships where people would look for inclusion and
belongingness. Then he pointed out that cultural connection can provide a basic
framework for inclusion and exclusion of global community that helps in explaining
how, when and why people become in-groups or out-groups, in which social life is all
about the personal, social and cultural consequences of who are include or exclude
and how people feel about it. On the one hand, social inclusion may benefit the
in-group members for providing positive social identity. On the other hand, social
exclusion can also be a means to bring psychological benefits to in-group members.
Effects of language learning on self identity
In reference to the research done by linguistic scholars in exploring the
interaction between linguistic, racial, gendered and national identities, it is believed
that experiences of second language learning serve as a role in shaping the formation
of new self identities, which people would perceive themselves as member of that
language cultural community. Ohara (2001) stated that students in United States
engaging in Japanese language learning may try to manipulate their language usage to
fit their own beliefs about Japanese society and culture, especially in the dynamic
nature of gender identity. It is caused by their increased gender identity awareness
21
through the language learning process that would facilitate the construction of gender
identity in Japanese. Similarly, Jackson (2007) found that Hong Kong students
participate in study abroad program showed higher degree of developing closer
relationships across cultures because of their rising awareness of the importance on
intercultural adjustment through the second language learning process.
Cultural difference in empathy
Eisenberg, Fabes, Carlo and Miller (1991) proposed that family cohesiveness is a
kind of empathy enhancers, which its extension can probably become a cultural
difference. In addition, Hoffman (2000) indicated that empathic feeling was biased to
favor one’s in-group, including family and friends. It can be explained by another
research that perceived similarity of helper and helpee would increase the empathic
feeling (Batson et al., 1995) Therefore, by understanding the role of culture in the
concept of in-groups and out-groups, it can be foresee that there would be cultural
difference in empathy, especially for the collectivistic and individualistic cultures.
Some researches found that the social identity is comparatively stronger in
collectivistic cultures and subcultures (Buss, 2001). Collectivist’s strong belief of their
in-group social identity would become a motivation to benefit the entire cultural
group as a whole. As a result, Batson et al. (2002) concluded that people from
collectivistic culture would more likely to feel empathy for in-group members so that
22
altruistic behavior would be more likely to be evoked when the helpee is considered
as an in-group member.
Kohlberg’s theory of moral development
The principle of empathy altruism hypothesis can be viewed as a decision
making process that related to moral judgment. To investigate the cognitive
component of moral development, Kohlberg (1976) proposed a stage theory of
morality. Three levels of moral reasoning were identified, including preconventional,
conventional and postconventional morality. In addition, each level was further
divided into two stages. In simply speaking, the first two stages were
punishment-obedience orientation and instrumental relativist orientation, in which
people would act under external control, such as avoiding punishment. The next two
stages were good boy –nice girl orientation and law and order orientation. People in
these two stages were able to identify authority figures and understand the laws of
society. They would try to obtain praise by obeying the authorities and social laws.
Followed by the second last stage was the social contract orientation. People would
make judgments according to social agreement and social contracts, such as norms.
Finally, the last stage was universal ethical principle orientation. People in this stage
would make decision according to ethical principles that can apply across time and
cultures. Nevertheless, very few people could attain the last stage of morality. As a
23
consequence, Kohlberg and Ryncarz (1990) proposed a seventh stage of morality of
cosmic orientation. People in this stage would regard the effect of their actions on the
universe as a whole instead of purely on other people. However, Gilligan (1982)
criticized Kohlberg’s theory by pointing out its over-simplicity of purely focusing on
right and justice. She pointed out that caring attitude should also be considered for
preventing gender biased. Besides, Blum (1994) pointed out that the moral orientation
stages in Kohlberg’s theory should come before moral judgment. As a result, moral
orientations become an important issue for researches in recent decades. In the
presence of all orientations such as law-abiding and self-actualization, empathy and
altruistic orientation were the two main orientations for pro-social behavior. Hoffman
(2000) concluded that there was a close relationship between empathy and moral
principles. He also concluded that empathy was the main motive for altruistic
behavior,
which
involved
both
cognitive
and
affective
components.
His
developmental model of empathy further supported Batson’s empathy-altruism
hypothesis, which the ability of recognizing other feelings beyond the immediate
situation was regarded as the empathic drive that led to altruism.
Relationship between moral orientation and altruistic motivation in Chinese context
Through the theory of empathy-based guilt, Hoffman (2000) stated that the
altruistic motives could be induced by guilty feelings, which was associated with
24
affective perspective taking and cognitive role taking. Through the evidence of higher
occurrence of altruistic behavior without expecting rewards, Eisenberg (2000)
demonstrated the extensiveness of altruistic motivations even towards strangers,
whose relationship was considered as distant from them. Wong (2003) has studied on
the guilt proneness to moral orientations in Hong Kong Chinese Adolescents, which is
similar to the current research in terms of age and cultural context. Results revealed
two statistically significant differences that female adolescents were more prone to
guilt and more altruistic to their close relatives than male adolescents, which provided
an explanation for the gender difference in empathy, which females often scored
higher than males. At the same time, this study also exhibited the importance of the
helper-helpee relationship. Fang (1980) described that
“Chinese concept of human nature is a caring human-oriented belief” (Fang,
1980).
He stated that one of the goals that Chinese culture proposed in human development
was empathy. In reference to Fang, Ma (1985a) proposed the hierarchy of human
relationships as a hypothetic construct for altruism, which included five levels entitled
from R1 to R5. The five levels included first kin or closed relatives, best friends or
intimates, strangers who are very weak or who are elites of the society, common
strangers and someone you dislike or enemies respectively. People would regard the
25
person as the most important from R1, to the least important, R5. Another research in
comparing Hong Kong, China and England subjects in this hierarchy of human
relationships proved that Chinese participants had the strongest orientation for
altruistic behavior, especially towards R1 relatives. (Ma, 1989) According to the
conclusion that social experiences underlie the growth of moral reasoning (Kohlberg,
2000) and the traditional emphasis of collective decision making (Stander & Jensen,
1993), it is believed that people grown up in Chinese culture would have the highest
likelihood to perform altruistic behavior.
Research Hypotheses
In this study, the empathy score, gender of male and female serve as the
independent variable (IV1). While the language major that categorized into the three
cultural groups serve as another independent variable (IV2) in cultural comparison. In
both kinds of comparisons, the empathy score on the empathy scales served as the
dependent variable (DV).
According to the literature of the previous study, the present study hypothesized
that the empathy score of female participants would be higher than male participants.
In addition, under the cultural dimension, it was hypothesized that the empathy scores
for the individualistic group would be higher than the mixed and collectivistic group
respectively since the hypothetic question in this study gave no specification on the
26
helpee’s identity, which served as a role as an out-group member.
For the investigation on altruistic behavior base on empathic emotion, it was also
hypothesized that the group of participants with higher averaged empathy score would
show higher possibility to participant in altruistic behavior. Based on the research
methodology of Kohlberg’s research about theory of morality of using hypothetic
stories, the current study employed a similar approach by providing a hypothetic
situation for participants to opt for their choice, which would serve as an indicator of
altruistic behavior. In gender dimension, female group would shower higher degree of
altruistic behavior than the male group. While in the cultural dimension, higher degree
of altruistic behavior would be found in individualistic group than the mixed and
collectivistic group respectively. The following hypotheses formed the main focus of
present study:
H1: empathy score of female participants will be higher than male participants
H2: empathy scores for the individualistic group will be higher than the mixed
and collectivistic group respectively.
H3: Female group will show higher degree of altruistic behavior than
male group.
H4: Individualistic group will show higher degree of altruistic behavior than
mixed and collectivistic group respectively.
27
This paper will provide a review of literature on concepts of empathy and
altruism, followed by the methodology and results of the present study. Discussion
will extend the implications and limitations of the current study to suggest
recommendations for future research.
Method
Participants
Two hundred and eighty five year one university students in Hong Kong
majoring in language studies were invited to participate in this research study. A total
of 194 subjects actually participated in the administration, with 188 valid
questionnaires obtained. For the sample of the administration consent form and
participant consent form, see Appendix I and II. With the intention of analyzing the
data for the corresponding research question, subjects were divided into two groups
by different criteria.
For the first research question in investigating the gender differences in empathy,
subjects were divided into two groups by gender.
The male group was formed by male students with an average age of 19.81 years
old (range from 18 to 22; S.D. = 1.25), which occupied 17.5% of the total number of
participants. (NM = 31)
The female group was formed by female students, with a mean age of 19.55
28
years old (range from 18 to 30; S.D. = 1.465), which occupied 82.5% of the total
number of respondents. (NF = 157)
For the second research question in determining the cultural difference in
empathy, subjects were divided into three groups by their specialized chosen
languages:
First group was defined as collectivist group, which subjects were only majoring
languages for collectivistic culture such as Chinese, Korean and Japanese. (Hui and
Villareal, 1989) There were totally 96 participants with a mean age of 19.54 years old
(range from 18 to 26; S.D. = 1.264), which occupied 51% of the total number of
participants. (NCol = 96)
Second group was named as individualist group. Participants in this group were
only majoring languages for individualistic culture such as French, Spanish and
English. (Hui and Villareal, 1989) Totally there were 30 participants in this group with
an average age of 20.07 years old (range from 18 to 30; S.D. = 2.406), which
occupied 16% of the total number of participants. (NInd = 30)
Third group was called mixed group, which respondents were majoring a
combination of languages for both collectivistic and individualistic culture, such as a
combination of Chinese and English. Totally there were 62 participants with a mean
age of 19.44 years old (range from 18 to 22; S.D. = 0.952), which occupied 33% of
29
the total number of participants. (NMix = 62)
Materials
A total of 285 sets of research questionnaires were prepared. Each set of
questionnaire contained four pages. The first page was an invitation letter to the
research study while the second page was a participant consent form. The third page
included research instruction, demographic data session and Chinese translation to
five statements in the empathy scale that participants may encounter difficulties in
understanding. The last page contained an empathy scale with 30 statements that
required respondents to circle the number that truly reflected their opinion. In addition,
a hypothetic question that asked for respondent’s willingness to participate in
altruistic behavior. For the sample of the research questionnaire, see Appendix III.
The empathy scale was described by Caruso and Mayer in 1998, which can be
used for measuring general empathy and specific emotional empathy for adolescents
and adults (Caruso & Mayer, 1998 a). There are totally 30 statements on the scale, in
which a principal components analysis yielded six meaningful factors, including
empathy suffering, positive sharing, responsive crying, emotional attention, feeling
for others and emotional contagion (Caruso & Mayer, 1998 b). In reference to the
current research, the factor of feeling for others was the key determinant on
empathy-altruistic behavior. Accordingly, by the high alpha reliabilities for all scale
30
scores, ability to demonstrate significant relationships to a number of behavioral
criteria and the flexibility in providing detailed sub-scales, the scale was employed to
measure the emotional empathy in altruistic behavior (Caruso and Mayer, 1998 c).
A video clip entitled named “將心比心，齊來捐血” (To feel for others, give
blood) (Hong Kong Red Cross, 1994) that was published by the Hong Kong Red
Cross was also employed in this research study as the universal stimulus of emotional
empathy for two reasons: the significant result of the pilot test in testing the validity
of arousing empathy feelings and its easy accessibility and popularity that was used in
real life altruistic behavior by charitable organization. For the detail of the pilot test
report, see Appendix III.
Facilities and Apparatus used in Study
A lecture room and a set of computer with projector and sound equipment were
employed for playing the video clip for each administration. In addition, a set of
computer with installed statistical program Statistical Product and Service Solution
(SPSS) was used for data input and analysis.
Pilot Tests
There were totally three pilot tests in this research study for testing the
effectiveness of video clips, feasibility of the hypothetic question and the
understanding of the Chinese translation of the empathy scale in the research
31
questionnaire.
Firstly, in order to have a universal tool to activate the empathic emotions of
participants, two video clips were selected from the website of Hong Kong Red Cross
Blood Transfusion Service as a source to arouse audience’s empathy feeling according
to their central message. This video clips were selected because they were simply and
clearly stated, and the clips were readily available online. Aside from the easy
accessibility, another reason for choosing these two particular clips was because they
were used in actual promotions by charitable organization in the past. One of the clip
(Clip A) was named “將心比心, 齊來捐血” (To feel for others, give blood) and was
published in 1994, giving a message to ask the audience to think and feel as a blood
recipient, which served as the empathic situation. While another clip (Clip B) was
named “各行各業, 齊來捐血” (All trades and professions, let’s all give blood) and
published in 1997, was an advertisement containing no empathic arousing slogan that
only encouraging people from different professions to donate blood.
A group of 25 students were invited to participate in this pilot test. They were
randomly allocated into 2 groups, A and B. Group A had 13 students and Group B had
12 students. Both groups of participants took this pilot test separately while Group A
participants watched Clip A and Group B participants watched Clip B.
At the beginning of this pilot test, participants received a set of questionnaire
32
which had fields for filling in their gender, age and 2 sets of empathy scale stated in
the previous part. Then, they were told to do fill in the first set of empathy scale and
demographic data. Next, the video clips were shown to them according to their
assigned group. After watching the video clip, they were asked to do the second set of
questionnaire.
The empathy score of participants in group A and B were calculated. Results
showed that video clip A could raise the averaged score for feeling for others in the
empathy scale while there was no difference between the averaged score for feeling
for others in the empathy scale before and after watching video clip B. Base on the
result of this pilot test, Clip A was employed in this research study.
The second pilot test was used to test the feasibility of hypothetic question in the
last part of the research questionnaire. During the beginning stage, the hypothetic
question was drafted as “The hypothetic question below requires your decision, YES
or NO: If you had the opportunity, would you join the blood donation campaign in
university” However, participants may think that there would be a negative
consequence on not participating in the campaign organized by the university.
Because participants are require to provide information about their medical condition,
there may be concern about sensitive information being revealed. In addition, needles
are used as means for blood donation, which some participants may refuse because
33
they afraid of needles but not because they are not willing to donate blood. As a
consequence, due to these concerns, this question was abandoned. Then, five
alternative questions were drafted as followed:
The hypothetic question below requires your decision, YES or NO:
If you had the opportunity, would you
1. help someone to find a lost contact lens?
2. donate money to a charity organization?
3. join the activity of “walks for millions”(百萬行) ?
4. give old clothes to a charity organization?
5. be a volunteer worker for a charity organization?
Later, three main questions were selected, including number 1, 2, and 5. This is
because the "walk" in option 3 identified the charity organization (The Community
Chest) and donating old clothes in option 4 seemed cost nothing, which the level is
not as similar as blood donation. Then an informal pilot test was then performed by
presenting the three questions to 20 university students for asking their understanding,
response and comment.
For question 1, one of them said that she did not understand the situation. The
other one said that he was willing to help, but he was afraid of "stepping on the lens
which makes the case even worse". For question 2, some of them were concerned
34
about how much they are going to donate and felt that it was not appropriate to use
"money" as the means of helping. Finally, for question 5, all participants responded
that they understand the question clearly on this. As a result, question 5 was employed
to be the hypothetic question in the survey.
Thirdly, a pilot test for testing the understanding of the Chinese translation of the
empathy scale in the research questionnaire was performed because some participants
in the first pilot test reflected that they did not understand the English meaning of
some statements. Totally five statements on the empathy scale were translated into
Chinese by the researcher and a graduate in the field of translation and interpretation.
Both Chinese and English statements were presented to 10 university students for
checking their understanding of the Chinese translation. Results showed that they had
no difficulty in getting the message of the statements in Chinese and caught the same
meaning as the English version. Base on the result of this pilot test, the five Chinese
translation statements were also employed in the research questionnaire.
Procedure
The whole administration process was scheduled on three days: 13th, 15th, and
16th November in 2006 and each administration lasted for 30 minutes. The three
groups of participants were invited to participate in present study with permission
from the researcher’s former language instructors. For each administration, each
35
participant was given a set of research questionnaire and consent form. After listening
to the researcher’s explanation about the purpose, participant roles and how the data
would be used in the research study, participants were asked to sign the consent form
if they agreed to participate. For participants who were not willing to participate in the
study, they were welcome to leave the lecture theatre immediately. Perhaps because of
the teacher’s statement of helping the researcher, all participants agreed to participate
in the present study. Then, the respondents were asked to read the instruction and fill
in the demographic information including, age, gender, major and year of study and
the administration date. Participants were prohibited to fill in the empathy scale
before watching the video clip of “將心比心, 齊來捐血” (To feel for others, give
blood). After watching the video clip, participants were asked to circle their degree of
agree on the 30 statements on the empathy scale and their decision of the hypothetic
question about whether they were willing to give their helping hand, “Yes” for they
are willing to be a volunteer worker for a charitable organization, while “No” for they
are not willing to be a volunteer worker for a charitable organization. Completed
research questionnaires were then collected by the researcher. The data collected
utilized SPSS for analysis. Two hundred and eighty five year one university students
in Hong Kong majoring in language studies were invited to participate in this research
study. A total of 194 subjects actually participated in the administration, with 188
36
valid questionnaires obtained.
Statistical Analysis
For the comparison of empathy scores, Independent t-test at the .05 level of
significance was employed as a means to compare the empathy scores in different
groups of participants.
For the sake of investigating the gender difference in empathy level, three
independent t-testes were performed. First is the general comparison between the
empathy scores of males and females. (NMale = 31; NFemale = 157) The second and the
third t-testes were also employed to compare the empathy differences between male
and female participants, which the former test only compared participants who
expressed their willingness to be a volunteer worker in a charity organization (NMale
Yes =
20; NFemale Yes = 137), while the latter one for participants who were not willing to.
(NMale No = 11; NFemale No = 20)
Similarly, same statistical analyzing technique was employed to investigate the
cultural differences in empathy scores. The only difference was three t-testes would
be performed for each type of comparison. For instance, in the general comparison,
there were three pairs of comparison, Collectivistic Group VS Mixed Group,
Individualistic Group VS Mixed Group, and Collectivistic Group VS Individualistic
Group. (NCol = 96; NMix = 62; NInd = 30) Likewise, instead of the general comparison,
37
another two types of comparison for participants who were (NCol Yes= 75; NMix Yes = 56;
NInd Yes = 26) or were not (NCol No = 21; NMix No = 6; NInd No = 4) willing to be a
volunteer worker in a charity organization were performed respectively.
In order to investigate the relationship between empathy scores and altruistic
behavior that whether high empathy scores would result in altruistic behavior in
different groups of participants, Chi-squares test was employed as a means to
calculate whether the observed frequencies were significantly different from the
frequencies expected by chance at the .05 level of significance. In each type of
comparison, participants would first be divided into Yes or No group according to
their willingness to be a volunteer worker in a charity organization. In each Yes or No
group, they will be categorized into two sub-groups of high empathic sub-group and
low empathic sub-group according to their empathy scores. An empathy score ranged
from 13 to 20 would be regarded as the high empathic group, while an empathy score
which was equal or less than 12 would be regarded as the low empathic group. The
critical value of 12 was derived from the design of the empathy scale. Since the four
target questions were evaluated by a five-point scale, which 3 is a neutral value, by
multiplying 3 to 4, equals to 12. The value was therefore set to be the optimal cutting
value.
Base on the division above, totally 10 chi-square testes were performed. For
38
instance, the Males Yes Group (M
Yes)
(High empathic sub-group VS Low empathic
sub-group), which was used for calculating the number of participants in the high
empathic sub-group was statistically significant higher than the low empathic
sub-group. While the Males No Group (M
No)
(High empathic sub-group VS Low
empathic sub-group), which was used for calculating the number of participants in the
high empathic sub-group was statistically significant lower than the low empathic
sub-group. Same division of Yes and No groups were applied to other four dimensions,
including female (F
Yes
and F
No),
collectivistic (Col
Yes
and Col
No),
mixed (Mix
Yes
and Mix No), and individualistic (Ind Yes and Ind No) dimensions.
Results
Gender differences in university students’ empathy score
The results of the present study are summarized in Tales 1-4. Table 1 shows the
levels of empathy scores by male and female university students. As can be seen,
under general comparison, female participants scored higher than male participants in
the empathy scale although the difference was not significant. (means = 12.13, 12.86)
However, by categorizing them by their willingness to be a volunteer worker in a
charity organization, the present study found a marginal significant result in the “Yes”
group, which males’ empathy score was significantly lower than males’. (means = 12,
13.01, t = -1.968, p < .05) By contrast, there was no significant difference in the “No”
39
group. Unexpectedly, males scored higher than females in this group. (means = 12.36,
11.85)
Table 1. Gender differences in university students’ empathy score
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
t-value
A. General Comparison
Empathy Score
Males (n=31)
12.13
2.802
Females (n=157)
12.86
2.179
-1.373
B. Willing to be a volunteer worker in a charity organization
MYes (n=20)
FYes (n=137)
Empathy Score
12
2.224
13.01
2.127
-1.968*
C. Not willing to be a volunteer worker in a charity organization
MNo (n=11)
FNo (n=20)
Empathy Score
12.36
3.749
11.85
2.323
.413
Note: * = Result significant at p < .05
Cultural differences in university students’ empathy score
The comparison of the levels of empathy scores were shown in Table 2 according
to cultural categorization, including Collectivistic, Mixed and Individualistic Group.
Overall, the mixed group scored the highest, followed by the collectivistic group,
while the individualistic group scored the least. (means = 12.95, 12.65, 12.60
respectively) Nevertheless, differences between all comparisons of empathy means
among the three groups were not significant, especially for the comparison between
collectivistic group and individualistic group. (means = 12.65, 12.60, t = .090, p
< .05)
40
Table 2. General cultural differences in university students’ empathy score
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
t-value
A. Collectivistic Group VS Mixed Group
Empathy Score
Col (n=96)
12.65
2.521
B. Individualistic Group VS Mixed Group
Ind (n=30)
Empathy Score
12.60
2.191
Mix (n=62)
12.95
1.995
-.806
Mix (n=62)
12.95
1.995
-.767
C. Collectivistic Group VS Individualistic Group
Col (n=96)
Ind (n=30)
Empathy Score
12.65
2.521
12.60
2.191
.090
Note: * = Result significant at p < .05
Cultural differences in university students’ empathy score who are willing to be a
volunteer worker in a charity organization.
In Table 3, only participants who are willing to be a volunteer worker in a charity
organization were included in the statistical tests. The results indicated that the
empathy scores of the three cultural groups were alike. Again, the mixed culture
group scored the highest. (mean = 12.96) However, compared to the general cultural
comparison in Table 2, the rank order of the individualistic group and collectivistic
group was reversed. (means = 12.88, 12.81)
41
Table 3. Cultural differences in university students’ empathy score who are willing to
be a volunteer worker in a charity organization
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
t-value
A. Collectivistic Group VS Mixed Group
MixYes (n=56)
12.96
1.981
-.394
MixYes (n=56)
12.96
1.981
-.164
C. Collectivistic Group VS Individualistic Group
ColYes (n=75)
IndYes (n=26)
Empathy Score
12.81
2.3
12.88
2.179
-.138
Empathy Score
ColYes (n=75)
12.81
2.3
B. Individualistic Group VS Mixed Group
IndYes (n=26)
Empathy Score
12.88
2.179
Note: * = Result significant at p < .05
Cultural differences in university students’ empathy score who are not willing to be a
volunteer worker in a charity organization.
Table 4 displayed the cultural differences in empathy scores for participants who
are not willing to be a volunteer working in a charity organization. The rank order of
the three cultural groups was the same as Table 2. The mixed group again scored the
highest, followed by the collectivistic group and individualistic group. (means = 12.83,
12.05, 10.75) The difference was bigger among the comparison between the
individualistic group and mixed group although this disparity was still not significant.
(t = -1.624, p < .05)
42
Table 4. Cultural differences in university students’ empathy score who are not
willing to be a volunteer worker in a charity organization
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
t-value
A. Collectivistic Group VS Mixed Group
Empathy Score
ColNo (n=21)
12.05
3.186
B. Individualistic Group VS Mixed Group
Ind No (n=4)
Empathy Score
10.75
1.258
Mix No (n=6)
12.83
2.317
-.560
Mix No (n=6)
12.83
2.317
-1.624
C. Collectivistic Group VS Individualistic Group
Col No (n=21)
I ndNo (n=4)
Empathy Score
12.05
3.186
10.75
1.258
.792
Note: * = Result significant at p < .05
Relationship between empathy scores and altruistic behavior in Gender Dimension
Chi-Square statistics across groups and subgroups in dimensions of gender were
summarized in Table 5.
Table 5. Chi-Square statistics across groups and subgroups in dimensions of gender
Dimension
Group
(High or Low)
Sub-group
(Yes or No)
Frequency
Male
High
Yes
11
No
9
Yes
6
No
5
Yes
80
No
57
Yes
7
No
13
Low
Female
High
Low
Chi-square
(χ2)
.200
.091
3.861*
1.800
Note: * = Result significant at p < .05
In male dimension, of the 20 participants in the Male Yes (M Yes ) Group, 11 were
in high empathic sub-group (empathy score larger than 12), and 9 were in the low
43
empathic sub-group (empathy score equal to or less than 12). Inconsistent with the
prediction, the differences between the high and low empathic subgroups were not
statistically significant as χ2
(1, N=20) = .200, p < .05.
Likewise, of the 11 participants in the Male No (M
No )
Group, 6 were in high
empathic and 5 were in the low empathic sub-group. Again, inconsistent with the
prediction, the differences between the high and low empathic subgroups were not
statistically significant as χ2
(1, N=11) = .091, p < .05.
In female dimension, of the 137 participants in the Female Yes (F Yes ) Group, 80
were in high empathic and 57 were in the low empathic sub-group. Consistent with
the prediction, the differences between the high and low empathic subgroups were
statistically significant as χ2
(1, N=137) = 3.861, p < .05.
Nevertheless, of the 20 participants in the Female No (F
No )
Group, 7 were in
high empathic and 13 were in the low empathic sub-group. Inconsistent with the
prediction, the differences between the high and low empathic subgroups were not
statistically significant as χ2
(1, N=20) = 1.800, p < .05.
Relationship between empathy scores and altruistic behavior in Cultural Dimension
Chi-Square statistics across groups and subgroups in dimensions of culture were
summarized in Table 6.
44
Table 6. Chi-Square statistics across groups and subgroups in dimensions of culture
Dimension
Group
(High or Low)
Sub-group
(Yes or No)
Frequency
Collectivistic
High
Yes
45
No
30
Yes
9
No
12
Yes
31
No
25
Yes
4
No
2
Yes
15
No
11
Yes
0
No
4
Low
Mixed
High
Low
Individualistic
High
Low
Chi-square
(χ2)
3.000
.429
.643
.667
.615
Not
Applicable
Note: * = Result significant at p < .05
In the collectivistic dimension, of the 75 participants in the Collectivistic Yes
(Col
Yes
) Group, 45 were in high empathic sub-group, and 30 were in the low
empathic sub-group. Inconsistent with the prediction, the differences between the high
and low empathic subgroups were not statistically significant
as χ2 (1, N=75)
= .083, p < .05.
Likewise, of the 21 participants in the Collectivistic No (Col
No )
Group, 9 were
in high empathic and 12 were in the low empathic sub-group. Again, inconsistent with
the prediction, the differences between the high and low empathic subgroups were not
statistically significant as χ2
(1, N=21) = .429, p < .05.
In the mixed dimension, of the 56 participants in the Mixed Yes (Mix Yes ) Group,
31 were in high empathic sub-group, and 25 were in the low empathic sub-group.
45
Also inconsistent with the prediction, the differences between the high and low
empathic subgroups were not statistically significant
as χ2
(1, N=56) = .643, p
No )
Group, 4 were in high
< .05.
Similarly, of the 6 participants in the Mixed No (Mix
empathic and 2 were in the low empathic sub-group. Again, inconsistent with the
prediction, the differences between the high and low empathic subgroups were not
statistically significant as χ2
(1, N=6) = .667, p < .05.
In the individualistic dimension, of the 26 participants in the Individualistic Yes
(Ind
Yes
) Group, 15 were in high empathic sub-group, and 11 were in the low
empathic sub-group. Again, inconsistent with the prediction, the differences between
the high and low empathic subgroups were not statistically significant as χ2
(1,
N=26) = .613, p < .05.
However, of the 4 participants in the Individualistic No (Ind
No
) Group, all of
them were in the low empathic sub-group, which violated the assumption of the
Chi-square test. By the inapplicability of chi-square test, no statistic result could be
drawn from this group.
To investigate the gender and cultural difference by comparing the frequency of
Yes and No response in the hypothetic question, a ratio was calculated by dividing the
number of Yes response by the number of No response, which reflected how many
46
Yes response would occur for every No response obtained. The corresponding
frequency percentage and ratio were summarized in Table 7.
Table 7. Comparison of frequencies on responses in hypothetic question
Frequency Percentage
Group
Yes
No
Ratio (Yes/No)
Male
65
35
1.9
Female
87
13
6.85
Collectivistic
78
22
3.6
Mixed
90
10
9
Individualistic
87
13
6.85
To observe the gender difference, 65% of male participants responded Yes while
35% responded No in the hypothetic question. For females participants, 87% reported
Yes while 13% reported No. By comparing the ratio of male and female group, a large
difference was observed. (Male = 1.9; Female = 6.85) This large disparity reflected
that female participants were more willing to be a volunteer worker in a charitable
organization than male participants regardless of empathy score.
To compare the statistical ratio above, similar result was found in cultural
dimension. For the frequency percentage in each group, the Yes and No responses for
the collectivistic group were 78% and 22% respectively. While for the mixed group,
the percentage was 90% to 10%. For the individualistic group, 87% and 13% were
obtained for Yes and No responses. Unexpectedly, the ratios ranked from the highest
to lowest were 9, 6.85 and 3.6 for the mixed, individualistic and collectivistic group
respectively.
47
Discussion
Implications and limitations of study
The results of the present study revealed a number of unexpected findings which
were inconsistent with the literature researches. In comparisons of empathy scores
according to the gender division, the differences in general empathy score for males
and females were not significant. In the next analysis that participants were narrowed
down by their willingness to be a volunteer worker in a charity organization, a
marginal significant result that females showed higher empathy scores than males was
found in the group that participants expressed their willingness to be a volunteer
worker. However, significant result could not be obtained for the other group. This
result implied that participants who do not actually participate in altruistic behavior
would not show gender difference in empathy score. Only the female university
students would reflect a higher empathy score with respect to altruistic behavior. The
result was consistent with Krystina, Finlay and Trafimow’s (1998) research on helping
victim of AIDS that no significant gender differences were observed in self-reports of
empathy toward victims of AIDS, whereas females were more likely to engage in
volunteer work than males.
The result of the present study could be explained by the higher level of self
awareness. Since people having high level of self awareness would be more
48
competent to feel for others, and that self awareness would help them to balance the
disparity between how they perceive themselves and how they realize their actual
performance in reality, which help them to reflect themselves truly. However, this
assumption requires further research for clarification. In addition, the marginal
difference could also be due to the limitation that an unexpected few number of male
participants in actual administration, which caused an extreme unequal number of
participants in the two gender groups. Therefore, approximately even number of
participants in both genders would be suggested in further studies. In addition, since
the study only focused on university students in Hong Kong who aged around 20,
whether age of personal experience could be a factor contributing to the similarity or
difference remains uncertain. Nevertheless, Eisenberg and Miller (1987) pointed out
that age of respondents is not crucial, whereas the method of empathy assessment
should be more important.
By the assumption that cultural factors could be a possible explanation of the
results, the present study recruited participants also according to their language major
in university. Since the hypothetic question in the current study indicated that no
identification of the helpee would be revealed, it was assumed that the perception of
the helpee by participants would more tend to as an out-group instead of an in-group
member. Therefore, it was hypothesized that individualistic group would score higher
49
and more likely to express willingness for altruistic behavior than the collectivistic
group since they help people without considering whether the helpee is in-group or
out-group. The mixed cultural group was assumed to have an empathy score lie
between the individualistic and collectivistic groups. It was unexpected to yield a
ranking that the mixed, collectivistic and individualistic groups were scored the
highest to lowest respectively in the empathy scale. Nevertheless, all independent
t-tests showed statistically insignificant in all comparisons according to the cultural
groups, which implied language majoring although provides students to immerge in a
different culture, however, it is not effective to change the cultural belief related to
empathy than the local cultural environment as they actually spend more time in local
context.
Overall, results in the present study showed limited statistically significant
difference in empathy level in gender and cultural dimension, which were inconsistent
with the classical literature. Nevertheless, in reference to a more recent research,
Hyde (2005) suggested the gender similarities hypothesis that males and females are
more psychologically similar than they are different in empathy and context where
measurement occurs would be one of the determinant of this gender difference.
Monk-Turner, Blake, Chniel, Forbes, Lensey, & Madzuma (2002) provided another
evidence for the gender similarity that no significant difference in helping behavior
50
between male and female subjects was obtained. As above, the findings provided an
insight that empathy is no longer dominant by females. It is speculated this balance
may be caused by socialization process, which females receive more tertiary
education in Hong Kong compared to the past that promote less gender stereotype on
their gender identity. Nevertheless, this suggestion required further investigation to be
proved.
For cultural explanation, LeBel (2006) pointed out participants in both
collectivistic and individualistic cultural groups would help in life-threatening
situations. While for less serious situations, participants from individualistic culture,
such as American, viewed helping as a matter of choice while subjects from
collectivistic culture, such as Indian, viewed helping as a moral responsibility, which
demonstrated the collectivistic characteristics of interdependence. In reference to
Davis (1980), both family and society play an important role in cultural group identity
formation. By referring to the Hong Kong situation, the traditional type of extended
family is no longer dominant the society, nowadays the society norm shifted this idea
to have nuclear family through the socialization process like industrialization and
globalization.
According to the biological explanation of empathy-altruism hypothesis, the
altruistic instinct is motivated by the desire for increasing survival possibilities of
51
close kinship. As a consequence, the shift in family size would result in reduction of
number of in-group members, which affects the construct of cultural identity. That
weaken in-group identity thus explained the result of low empathy score and less
altruistic behavior when comparing the collectivistic group to the mixed and
individualistic group.
For the investigation of the relationship between empathy scores and altruistic
behavior in gender dimension, again, only the female groups who were willing to be a
volunteer worker in a charity organization obtained a significant result in the
difference between the frequencies of high and low empathy scores. Although the
other group of females who were not willing to be volunteer worker obtained an
expected higher frequency for the low empathic group, the difference was not
statistically significant enough. While for the both male yes and no groups, the
number of participants in high and low empathic group were nearly the same, which
indicated that male university students were less likely to elicit altruistic behavior
according to their empathy level. Empathy would not be a strong determinant for
altruistic behavior of male university students in Hong Kong context. However, the
result could also be explained by the incongruent empathy scale as the previous
studies in literature. Since the empathy scale employed by the present study was a
general empathy scale, which contained a combination of different empathy measures.
52
Although it was suggested by the scale developer for the possibility of using the scale
in research, the items that were selected to be included in the present study were
limited. Myyry (2003) also stated that the strength of the association between
empathy and altruism was dependent on method of assessing empathy. Nevertheless,
an alternative explanation could be derived in reference to the literature that females
were more likely to engage in long term altruistic behavior, such as working as a
volunteer worker in a school for teaching children, which pointed out a limitation of
the current research. (Eagly & Crowley, 1986) Belansky and Boggiano (1994) further
supported this idea by suggesting females are less likely to engage in helping behavior
in non-emergency than males. Andreoni and Vesterlund (2001) found that women
were more tend to be egalitarian for sharing while men were more tend to behave in
either extreme of selfish or selfless. Therefore, it seemed the content of the hypothetic
situation originally favored female participants to answer Yes.
For the investigation of the relationship between empathy scores and altruistic
behavior in cultural dimension, similar to the result of the comparison of empathy
score, no significant result could be concluded under the cultural dimensions. While
in the collectivistic yes group, the chi-square was almost reached to the critical cutoff
chi-square value when compared to other groups. However, this result might again
due to the abundant number of participants in the collectivistic group. Therefore,
53
research recruiting even number of participants for each group would be an important
concern, especially for employing chi-square test. Nevertheless, this limitation
induced a design error in this study about the hypothetic question, which only
required Yes or No decision, restricted the choice of statistical tests such as correlation.
Although it was stated in the perceived similarity of helper and helpee would increase
the empathic feeling (Batson et al., 1995), another research found that shared group
membership did not affect the empathic altruism (Batson et al., 1997), which may
provide an alternative explanation to the result in present study. Furthermore, since
the present research hypothetic question provided no options for explaining
participant’s choices, and the nature of the hypothetic situation assumed no
responsibility for the participants, which may result in another limitation on
inaccurate perception of the hypothetic situation. Finally, employing a video clip that
was shown in the past might result in another limitation of the research. Although the
familiarity could positively smooth the administrative process, there are uncertain
negative consequences. For instance, if the video clip or the movie star in that clip
was negatively critiqued by peers of the participants, participants might have already
built up a negative appraisal towards the clip in the past. As a result, participants
perceived the message of the video clip with prejudice.
In addition to gender and cultural explanations, other factors have also been
54
proved as a role that would take part in influencing the effect of empathy-altruistic
behavior. Instead of indicating general difference, the majority of these factors explain
empathy-altruistic behavior by individual differences such as personality (Siem &
Spence, 1986; Tice & Baumeister, 1985), positive and negative emotion (Aronson et
al., 2004) and other situational determinants might provide alternative occasion of
empathy, which situational forces may affect the quick decision to help or not (Clary
& Orenstein, 1991; Clary & Snyder, 1991).
Due to the sole manipulation on
situation in the current study, personality difference and mood of participants might
also affect the results. Another interpretation was derived from Levine (2001), who
revealed a large cross-cultural variation in situation of helping strangers from
independent field experiments in twenty-three large cities around the world. Results
showed the overall rate of altruistic behavior ranked from 93% in Rio de Janeiro in
Brazil to 40% in Kuala Lampur in Malaysia. Surprisingly, the possibility for
participants to elicit helping behavior was not related to that particular cultural
categorization, but was negatively related to a country’s economic productivity, which
may fit into Hong Kong well developed economic situation that suggest another
aspect for further investigation.
Recommendations and further investigation
In order to improve the research design, several alternative methods can be
55
employed. First, to increase the number of hypothetic questions that requires either
Yes or No decision. Second, to replace the Yes or No decision with a five or seven
point scales to increase its variability for analysis. Third, in order to investigate the
effect of in-group and out-group, one more option can be added to the hypothetic
question, which can specify a cue on whether the helpee should be considered as an
in-group or out-group members. Fourthly, having manipulation on variables such as
personality type in the process of screening participants would help in reducing
possible influence on the main findings. Experiments with laboratory setting may
reduce the effect of other possible determinants. Fifthly, in order to investigate
whether the balance in gender empathic level would be caused by the socialization
process and increasing opportunity for receiving tertiary education compared to the
past that promote less gender stereotype on their gender identity. Since the present
study also employed university students as participants, focus group that aims for
seeking the impacts of past education experience on gender identity would be
preferred. Sixthly, to overcome the limitation that the content of the hypothetic
situation seemed originally favored female participants to answer Yes, instead of
stating the task as a volunteer worker, a list of equal number of gender stereotype
tasks can be provided for the participants to select how they are willing to do such
type of specific duties, which may help in balancing the original difference between
56
the gender helping styles. Seventhly, to deal with the limitation on inaccurate
perception of the hypothetic situation, interviews can be arranged to explore the
reasons behind participant’s choices in the hypothetical question and how they
actually perceived the hypothetic helpee as an in-group or out-group member.
Similarly, the research design can also be improved by providing reasons for
participants to select after they answered the hypothetic question. The options may
include fame, emotional fulfillment, a mean for spending leisure time, or simply, I
want to help. A blank line can also be added for participant to fill in their own reason,
which can help in explore the finding in future research. Finally, in reference to the
association between empathy development and Kohlberg’s theory of morality (1976),
with Wong’s (2003) and Ma’s (1989) research findings about moral orientations in
Hong Kong and Chinese contexts, future researches on investigating the relationships
between guilty feelings, moral development and empathy-altruism hypothesis may
provide a complete understanding of gender and cultural differences in altruism
within the local context.
57
References
Abrams D., Hogg M. A., and Marques J. M. (2005.)
The social psychology of
inclusion and exclusion. New York, US: Taylor & Francis Books.
Andreoni, J. & Vesterlund, L. (2001). Which is the Fairer Sex? Gender Differences in
Altruism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 293-312.
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., Akert, R. M., & Fehr, B. (2004). Social Psychology (2nd
Canadian ed.). Toronto, ON: Prentice Hall.
Batson, C.D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it even truly altruistic? In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.20, pp.65-122). New York:
Academic Press.
Batson, C.D., Fultz, J., & Schoenrade, P. (1987). Distress and empathy: Two
qualitatively distinct vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences.
Journal of personarlity and Social Psychology, 50, 175-181.
Batson, C.D., Dyck, J. L., Brandt, J. R., Batson, J. G., Powell, A. L., McMaster, M. R.,
& Griffitt, C. (1988). Five studies testing two new egoistic alternatives to the
empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 23, 751-758.
58
Batson, C.D., Batson, J. G., Griffitt, C. A., Barrientos, S., Brandt, J. R., Sprengelmeyer,
P., & Bayly, M. J. (1989). Negative-state relief and the empathy-altruism
hypothesis. Jounal of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 56, 922-933.
Batson, C.D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer.
Hillsdale, NJL Erlbaum.
Batson, C.D., Batson, J. G., Slingsby, J. K., Harrell, K. L., Peekna, H. M., & Todd, R.
M. (1991). Empathic joy and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 413-426.
Batson, C. D., Turk, C. L., Shaw, L. L. & Klein, T. R. (1995). Information function of
empathic emotions: Learning that we value the other’s welfare. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 300-313.
Batson, C.D., Sympson, S.C., Hindman, J.L., Decruz, P., Todd, R.M., Weeks, J.L.,
Jennings, G., & Burris, C.T. (1996). "I've been there, too": Effect on empathy of
prior experience with a need. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22,
474-482.
Batson, C.D., Sympson, S.C., Hindman, J.L., Decruz, P., Todd, R.M., Weeks, J.L.,
Jennings, G., & Burris, C.T. (1996). "I've been there, too": Effect on empathy of
prior experience with a need. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22,
474-482.
59
Batson, C.D., & Weeks, J. L. (1996). Mood effects of unsuccessful helping: Another
test of the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 22, 148-157.
Batson C. D., Sager, K., Garst, E., Kang, M., Rubchinsky, K., & Dawson K. (1997). Is
empathy-induced helping due to self-other merging? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 73, 495-509.
Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N., Lishner, D. A., & Tsang, J. (2002). Empathy and altruism.
In C. R. Snyder & S. L. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp.
485-498). New York: Oxford University Press.
Belansky, E. S. & Boggiano, A. K. (1994). Predicting Helping Behaviors: The Role of
Gender and Instrumental/Expressive Self-Schemata. Sex Roles: A Journal of
Research, 30, 647-62.
Blum, L. A. (1994). Moral perception and particularity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Buss, A. H. (2001) Psychological dimensions of the self. US: Sage.
Caruso, D. R., & Mayer, J. D. (1998). A Measure of Emotional Empathy for
Adolescents and Adults. In Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999).
Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence.
Intelligence ,27, 267-298.
60
Cialdini, R. B., Schaller, M., Houlihan, D., Arps, K., Fultz, J., & and Beaman, A. L.
(1987). Empathy-based helping: Is it selflessly or selfishly motivated? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 749-758.
Cialdini, R.B., (1991). Altruism or egoism? That is (still) the question. Psychological
Inquiry. 2, 124-126.
Clary, E. G., & Orenstein, L. (1991). The amount and effectiveness of Help: The
relationship of motives and abilities to helping behavior. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 17, 1, 58-64.
Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. (1991). A functional analysis of altruism and prosocial
behavior: The case of volunteerism. In M. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and
social psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Davis, M. H. (1980). Multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy.
JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
Eagly, A.H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender differences in helping behavior: A
meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin,
100, 283-308.
Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and related
capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 100–131.
61
Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). Empathy, sympathy, and altruism: empirical and
conceptual links. In Eisenberg, N. & Strayer, J. (Eds.), Empathy and its
development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1988). The relation of empathy to aggressive and
externalizing antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 324-344.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Carlo, G., & Miller, P. A. The relations of parental
characteristics and practices to children's vicarious emotional responding. Child
Development, 62, 393-404.
Eisenberg, N. (2000). Meta-analytic contributions to the literature on prosoical
behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 273-282.
Fang, T. H. (1980). The Chinese view of life: The philosophy of comprehensive
harmony. Taipei: Linking.
Fultz, J., Batson, C.D., Fortenbach, V.A., McCarthy, P.M., & Varney, L.L. (1986).
Social evaluation and the empathy – altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 50, 761-769.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s
development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hall, L. (1999). A comprehensive survey of social behaviors in the O.J. Simpson case,
from A to Z. Wales, United Kingdom: The Edwin Meller Press.
62
Hofstede, G. (1994). Cultures and organizations: Intercultural cooperation and its
importance for survival. London: Harper Collins.
Hoffman, M. L. (1981). Is altruism part of human nature? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 40, 121-137.
Hoffman, M.L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and
justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hong Kong Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service, (1994). Promotion Video on TV:
張學友 (將心比心, 齊來捐血). Retrieved September 10, 2006 from
http://www5.ha.org.hk/RCBTS/c_gallery.html.
Hong Kong Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service, (1997). Promotion Video on TV:
陳曉東 (各行各業, 齊來捐血). Retrieved September 10, 2006 from
http://www5.ha.org.hk/RCBTS/c_gallery.html.
Hong Kong Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service, (2005). Basic Eligibility Criteria
for Blood Donor. Retrieved April 25, 2007 from
http://www5.ha.org.hk/rcbts/e_donation.html.
Hui, C.H., & Villareal, M.J. (1989). Individualism-collectivism and psychological
needs: their relationships in two cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
20, 3, 310-323.
63
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 6,
581-592.
Jackson, J. (2007). Mutuality, engagement, and agency: Negotiating identity on stays
abroad. Manoa: University of Hawai’I, National foreign language resource center.
Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stage and moralization: The cognitive-developmental
approach. In Lickona, T. (Ed.), Moral development and behavior. NY: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Kohlberg, L., & Ryncarz, R. A. (1990). Beyond justice reasoning: Moral development
and consideration of a seventh stage. In Alexander, C. N. & Langer, E. J. (Eds.),
Higher stages of human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krebs, D. L. (1975). Empathy and altruism. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 32, 1134-1146.
Krystina, A., Finlay and Trafimow, D. (1998). The Relationship Between the Private
Self and Helping Victims of AIDS. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28,
1798–1809.
LeBel, E. (2006). On the nature of prosocial behaviors. US: University of Western
Ontario.
Levine, R., Norenzayan, A., Philbrick, K. (2001). Cross-Cultural Differences in
Helping Strangers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 543-560.
64
Lipps, T. (1903). Aesthetek Psychologie des Schonen und der Kunst. Hamburg &
Leipzig: Leopold Voss.
Ma, H. K. (1985a). Cross-cultural study of the hierarchical structure of human
relationships. Psychological Reports, 57, 1079-1083.
Ma, H. K. (1989). Moral orientation and moral judgment in adolescents in Hong
Kong, Mainland China and England. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 20,
152-177.
MacLean, P. D. (1973). A triune concept of the brain and behavior. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Monk-Turner, E., Blake, V,. Chniel, F., Forbes, S., Lensey, L., & Madzuma, J.(2002).
Helping hands: A study of altruistic behaviour. Gender Issue, Fall, 65-70.
Myers, D.G. (1996). Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Myyry, L. (2003). A Professional Ethics Perspective on Moral Motivation, Moral
Sensitivity, Moral Reasoning and Related Constructs Among University Students.
Social Psychological Studies, 9, 43-49.
Ohara, Y. (2001). Learners as agents in the construction of gender in the Japanese
Foreign Language classroom. Manoa: University of Hawai’I, National foreign
language resource center.
65
Rest, J. (1986). Moral development. Advances in research and theory. New York:
Praeger.
Sabini, J. (1995). Social Psychology (2nd Ed). NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Shaw, L.L., Batson, C.D., & Todd, R.M.(1994). Empathy avoidance: Forestalling
feeling for another in order to escape the motivational consequences. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 879-887.
Shelton, M. L., & Rogers, R. W. (1981). Fear arousing and empathy-arousing appeals
to help: The pathos of persuasion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11,
366-378.
Siem, F. M., & Spence, J. T. (1986). Gender-related traits and helping behaviors.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 615-621.
Smith, E.R., & Mackie, D.M. (2000) Social Psychology (2nd Ed). New York:
Psychology Press.
Smith, K. D., Keating, J. P., & Stotland, E. (1989). Altruism reconsidered: The effect
of denying feedback on a victim’s status to empathic witnesses. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 641-650.
Stander, V., & Jensen, L. (1993). The relationship of value orientation to moral
cognition: Gender and cultural differences in the United States and China explored.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, 42-52.
66
Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1985). Masculinity inhibits helping in emergencies:
Personality does predict the bystander effect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38, 291-300.
Titchener, E. (1909) Experimental psychology of the thought processes. New York:
Macmillan.
Toi, M., & Batson, C. D. (1982). More evidence that empathy is a source of altruistic
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 281-292.
Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., & Villareal, M. J. (1988). Individualism and
Collectivism: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Self-Ingroup Relationships. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 2, 323-338.
Triandis, H. C. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In J.
Berman (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 37, Cross-cultural
perspectives. Lincoln: Univeristy of Nebraska Press.
Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. CO: Westview Press.
Trivers, R.L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of
Biology. 46: 35-57.
Wegner, D. M. (1980), "The Self in Prosocial Action," In Wegner, D. M. and Vallacher,
R. R. (Ed), The Self in Social Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press,
131-157.
67
Wispe, L. (1986). The distinction between sympathy and empathy: To call forth a
concept a word is needed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,
314-321.
Wong, K. T. (2003). The Relation of Shame-and Guilt-Proneness to Moral
Orientations in Hong Kong Chinese Adolescents. Sha Tin Methodist College 20th
Anniversary Academic Publication.
68
Appendix I – Sample of Administration consent form
November 13, 2006
RE: Administrative Consent for Research
Dear Teacher’s name,
I am writing to request administrative consent to conduct research with your
institution, the City University of Hong Kong. I am a bachelor degree undergraduate
in the Applied Social Studies Department at the City University of Hong Kong. My
research is being conducted under the supervision of Dr. Betty C. Eng. I am
requesting the participation of the students from your lecture of course name to
explore the dimensions of gender difference in empathy. My research will be analyzed
quantitatively and statistically to trace how the gender difference in empathy shapes
or contributes to altruistic behavior.
The subjects will be invited to participate to watch a video clip for 1 minute and
completing their response to a questionnaire composed of 30 statements. It is
anticipated that my whole data collection process will be conducted in 10 minutes.
Participants who give written consent will be randomly selected for follow-up
interview for 1 hour to investigate their learning experience.
Confidentiality and privacy will be maintained as far as possible within my
control. Pseudonyms will be used or information that may identify you or your
institution will be obscured or deleted as appropriate. All data will be stored in a
secured location and will be viewed only by my thesis supervisor and myself. All data
will be disposed of within one year, with written notes shredded or electronically
deleted.
At any time, participants may withdraw from the research study without any
negative consequences. Should participants decide to withdraw from the study, the
data collected from their participation will not be used and will be destroyed within
one year.
If your institution agrees to provide the administrative support for my research
study, please sign the enclosed consent form. I have also included the invitation letter
to the participants and sample questionnaire for your information. It is hoped that my
research study will broaden understanding gender difference in empathy towards
69
altruistic behavior. Please feel free to contact me at Tel. (852) xxxx-xxxx, should
you have any further questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Woo Man Sze Zisi
(852) xxxx-xxxx
email: [email protected]
Encl: Letter to Participants
Sample Questionnaire
70
Appendix II – Sample of Participant consent form
November 13, 2006
RE: Participation in Research Study
Dear Student,
I am writing to invite you to participate in my research study to explore the
dimensions of the gender difference in empathy. My research will be written in the
quantitatively and statistically to trace how the gender difference in empathy shapes
or contributes towards altruistic behavior. I am a bachelor degree undergraduate in the
Applied Social Studies Department at the City University of Hong Kong and my
research is being conducted under the supervision of Dr. Betty C. Eng.
Your participation will require you to participate in watching a video clip for 1
minute and filling your responses to a 30 statements. It is anticipated that my whole
data collection process will be conducted in 10 minutes. Participants who give written
consent will be randomly selected for follow-up interview for 1 hour to investigate
their learning experience.
Confidentiality and privacy will be maintained as far as possible within my
control. Pseudonyms will be used or information that may identify you or your
institution will be obscured or deleted as appropriate. All data will be stored in a
secured location and will be viewed only by my thesis supervisor and myself. All data
will be disposed of within one year, with written notes shredded or electronically
deleted.
If you agree to participate in my research study, please sign the enclosed consent
form. It is hoped that my research study will broaden the understanding of gender
difference in empathy towards altruistic behaviors. Please feel free to contact me at
Tel. (852) xxxx-xxxx, should you have any further questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Woo Man Sze Zisi
(852) xxxx-xxxx
email: [email protected]
Encl: Consent form
71
PARTICIPANT CONSENT – PART A
agree to participate in the research
I
project that Woo Man Sze Zisi is conducting to study gender difference in the research
project that under the supervision of Dr. Betty C. Eng of the City University of Hong
Kong. I agree to participate in the 10-minute data collection process.
I understand confidentiality and privacy of my information will be maintained as far
as possible within the control of the researcher. I understand that the written material
will be edited to remove information which could reveal the identity of the
participants or the institution. Materials from their participation will be used for a
class assignment, undergraduate research thesis, conference presentations, research
projects, and/or publications.
I have read, understand, and am satisfied with the nature, scope and terms of the
research as stated in the attached letter.
Signature of Participant
Date
Name in Block Letters
Student Number
Signature of Researcher
Email: [email protected]
Tel. (852) xxxx-xxxx
Date
PARTICIPANT CONSENT – PART B
I
agree to be interviewed for 1 hour for
the follow-up interview for investigating learning experience. The location for the
interviews will be negotiated.
Signature of Participant
Date
72
Appendix III – Sample of Research Questionnaire
RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE
Steps:
1. Please complete Part A below.
2. Please watch the video clip of
“To feel for others, give blood (將心比心，齊來捐血)”
3. ***You are not permitted to fill in the questionnaire in Part B before watching the video clip
***
4. Please CIRCLE the number that truly reflects your opinion about 30 statements in the table.
PART A
1.
2.
3.
Age:
Gender:
Program: (Please circle)
AAJS / AAPRC / AABCSCE / AABCSCJ /
ABCSEJ / AABCSFE / AABCSSE / AABCSKE
4. Year:
5. Today’s Date: __________________
PART B – Research Questionnaire
Participants may encounter difficulties in some of the questions in Part B. Below is the Chinese
translation these questions.
7. I always try to tune in to the feelings of those around me.
→ 我總會設法調整自己的想法去理解圍繞我週邊的人感受。
9. Too much is made of the suffering of pets or animals.
→ 我認為有太多令動物或寵物痛苦的事發生。
15. It's easy for me to get carried away by other people's emotions.
→ 我容易被其他人的情感所影響。
17. If a crowd gets excited about something so do I.
→ 假如週邊的人群感到興奮，我也同樣感到興奮。
19. I feel deeply for others.
→ 我能感受別人的深處感受。
73
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree < 1 2 3 4 5> Agree
1.
I feel like crying when watching a sad movie.
1
2
3
4
5
2.
Certain pieces of music can really move me.
1
2
3
4
5
3.
Seeing a hurt animal by the side of the road is very upsetting.
1
2
3
4
5
4.
I don't give others' feelings much thought.
1
2
3
4
5
5.
It makes me happy when I see people being nice to each other.
1
2
3
4
5
6.
The suffering of others deeply disturbs me.
1
2
3
4
5
7.
I always try to tune in to the feelings of those around me.
1
2
3
4
5
8.
I get very upset when I see a young child who is being treated meanly.
1
2
3
4
5
9.
Too much is made of the suffering of pets or animals.
1
2
3
4
5
10.
If someone is upset I get upset, too.
1 2 3 4 5
11.
When I'm with other people who are laughing I join in.
1
2
3
4
5
12.
It makes me mad to see someone treated unjustly.
1
2
3
4
5
13.
I rarely take notice when people treat each other warmly.
1
2
3
4
5
14.
I feel happy when I see people laughing and enjoying themselves.
1 2 3 4 5
15.
It's easy for me to get carried away by other people's emotions.
1 2 3 4 5
16.
My feelings are my own and don't reflect how others feel.
1
17.
If a crowd gets excited about something so do I.
1 2 3 4 5
18.
I feel good when I help someone out or do something nice for someone.
1
19.
I feel deeply for others.
1 2 3 4 5
20.
I don't cry easily.
1
2
3
4
5
21.
I feel other people's pain.
1
2
3
4
5
22.
Seeing other people smile makes me smile.
1
2
3
4
5
23.
Being around happy people makes me feel happy, too.
1
2
3
4
5
24.
TV or news stories about injured or sick children greatly upset me.
1
2
3
4
5
25.
I cry at sad parts of the books I read.
1
2
3
4
5
26.
Being around people who are depressed brings my mood down.
1
2
3
4
5
27.
I find it annoying when people cry in public.
1
2
3
4
5
28.
It hurts to see another person in pain.
1 2 3 4 5
29.
I get a warm feeling for someone if I see them helping another person.
1
2
3
4
5
30.
I feel other people's joy.
1
2
3
4
5
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
PART C – Decision
The hypothetic question below requires your decision, YES or NO:
If you had the opportunity, would you be a volunteer worker for a charity
organization?
74
Yes / No
75